I understand the growth of Ws because there's no directly equivalent Marriott brand. I kind-of understand the growth of St. Regis because the service offering and our elite treatment is different to Ritz Carltons even though the hardware could be considered equivalent.
What I don't understand is how they now decide which brand a new hotel comes under when there are broadly equivalent brands from both legacy groups. For example, Luxury Collection or Autograph. What is the criteria for deciding which brand will be applied to a new joining hotel? I consider LC to be a stronger brand but that's because I'm legacy SPG and am more familiar with it so I may not be correct. Does the continued support of LC mean they plan for Autograph to eventually die out?
More mysterious, how do they decide Sheraton or Marriott which, as brands (if not individual hotels), I consider interchangable? For example, the conversion of the Pan Pacific in Manila to a Sheraton. I've stayed there. It would not be out of place in the portfolios of Sheraton, Marriott, Westin, or Renaissance. Where is the decision made that this is best suited to the Sheraton brand? Simply because it's old and tired and features dated wood and marble? Plenty of legacy Marriotts like that as well.
These questions torment me.